Would/do you support the War In Iraq?

[Mordecai]

Yeah, but with major caveats.

Obviously it was prosecuted incompetently and I don't think the Bush administration did a good job with planning for the occupation. They shouldn't have overstated their case to invade and depose Saddam, and they should have been more forthcoming with the potential consequences of the intervention. They also made a serious strategic error in diverting resources from Afghanistan to Iraq that could have been used to apprehend bin Laden before he escaped over the border into Pakistan.

[BaconBacon96]

Terrible conflict.

The worst thing John Howard did was support the Iraq War.

[The Mikado]

Would?  Are we planning a third invasion of Iraq?

[SWE]

Absolutely not

[Prince of Salem]

No with hindsight.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

There is literally no rational reason to support the Iraq War.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

There is literally no rational reason to support the Iraq War.

Over throwing Arab Hitler is not one?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

There is literally no rational reason to support the Iraq War.

Over throwing Arab Hitler is not one?

Nope. I honestly couldn't care less if the people of Iraq are free or not. It wasn't our problem to begin with, and the people would have given Saddam the Qaddaffi treatment (albeit after a brutal response that, as Ernest noted, makes the Syrian and Libyan responses to the Arab Spring look like childs play) by 2013ish anyway.

Also, are you willing to join the military? Are you willing to go over there and fight? Almost every hawk I have ever met has never served our nation.

[angus]

From today's Spectator, the new Iraq war will be much more devastating that the last one.  Neither the US nor the UK seem to want any part of it.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/9230601/the-new-iraq-war/

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Probably would have at the time, but I'm not so sure with hindsight.

[TNF]

You would have to be literally retarded to vote Yes at this point, knowing all we know now. (Not that it justifies supporting it in the first place, given that even in 2003 you didn't have to be a f**king genius to realize that Saddam Hussein had absolutely f**king nothing to do with 9/11)

[°Leprechaun]

There is literally no rational reason to support the Iraq any war.

[TNF]

There is literally no rational reason to support the Iraq any war.

Yes there are. This is patent nonsense. War is at times necessary to bring forth desired social changes: the Civil War and the American Revolution both stand out fairly explicitly in that regard.

[°Leprechaun]

There is literally no rational reason to support the Iraq any war.

Yes there are. This is patent nonsense. War is at times necessary to bring forth desired social changes: the Civil War and the American Revolution both stand out fairly explicitly in that regard.

Wrong! There is just as much reason for me to challenge you to a duel to the death, but that would be illegal. I am not saying that dueling is ok, just proving you wrong. Killing people to solve a problem is insane, insane, insane. Not only that it is insane. War, as the song says is good for nothing, absolutely nothing. Right to life? That means nothing?

[TNF]

I tend to think that it's okay to kill people who hold other people as slaves, or exercise absolute tyrannical authority over people, but that's just me, and I think that's a fairly sane position.

[°Leprechaun]

Sorry, I got a little too militant there for a minute, haha...

[°Leprechaun]

I tend to think that it's okay to kill people who hold other people as slaves, or exercise absolute tyrannical authority over people, but that's just me, and I think that's a fairly sane position.

 

To fight and to kill are two different things, there are ways to oppose tyranny without killing anyone.
If people have a right to life, then killing them is wrong.

[°Leprechaun]

It is interesting to note that 86% of us think the war was wrong, yet it was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, which is why I am reluctant to vote for anyone of either party.

[TNF]

Sorry, I got a little too militant there for a minute, haha...

No worries. Look, I'm almost absolutely on page with you about war (I can't think of one the U.S. has engaged in since the Civil War I can say that I would support), I just take a more nuanced attitude toward the use of violence and the making of war, I'd say. Violence can be tactically advantageous in a given situation, but it should only be used (a) to free someone or a group of persons from an outside oppressive and controlling force and (b) when you're sure you can use it to win.

I tend to think that it's okay to kill people who hold other people as slaves, or exercise absolute tyrannical authority over people, but that's just me, and I think that's a fairly sane position.

 

To fight and to kill are two different things, there are ways to oppose tyranny without killing anyone.
If people have a right to life, then killing them is wrong.

No, there really aren't ways to oppose tyranny without removing the source of said tyranny. You would never be successful in kindly, gently asking the slaveowners to free their slaves. They had to be exterminated or rendered incapable of exercising their power to purchase and hold slaves.

I do not intrinsically hold that all life has value or that life should be placed upon a pedestal or any of that, either. I think that doing so is a mistake and causes a lot of undue suffering in the world, precisely because such thinking leads to the kind of thing you are arguing here.

[°Leprechaun]

Sorry, I got a little too militant there for a minute, haha...

No worries. Look, I'm almost absolutely on page with you about war (I can't think of one the U.S. has engaged in since the Civil War I can say that I would support), I just take a more nuanced attitude toward the use of violence and the making of war, I'd say. Violence can be tactically advantageous in a given situation, but it should only be used (a) to free someone or a group of persons from an outside oppressive and controlling force and (b) when you're sure you can use it to win.

I tend to think that it's okay to kill people who hold other people as slaves, or exercise absolute tyrannical authority over people, but that's just me, and I think that's a fairly sane position.

 

To fight and to kill are two different things, there are ways to oppose tyranny without killing anyone.
If people have a right to life, then killing them is wrong.

No, there really aren't ways to oppose tyranny without removing the source of said tyranny. You would never be successful in kindly, gently asking the slaveowners to free their slaves. They had to be exterminated or rendered incapable of exercising their power to purchase and hold slaves.

I do not intrinsically hold that all life has value or that life should be placed upon a pedestal or any of that, either. I think that doing so is a mistake and causes a lot of undue suffering in the world, precisely because such thinking leads to the kind of thing you are arguing here.

Violence and killing are two differtent things. I am not opposed to the use of force in self defense, because it doesn't always involve death. Basically we are in agreement. Waging war is bad, but I don't want to use up too much energy in quiblling over whether there are exceptions.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

There is literally no rational reason to support the Iraq War.

Over throwing Arab Hitler is not one?

Nope. I honestly couldn't care less if the people of Iraq are free or not. It wasn't our problem to begin with, and the people would have given Saddam the Qaddaffi treatment (albeit after a brutal response that, as Ernest noted, makes the Syrian and Libyan responses to the Arab Spring look like childs play) by 2013ish anyway.

Also, are you willing to join the military? Are you willing to go over there and fight? Almost every hawk I have ever met has never served our nation.

I wouldn't join, but there are tons of poor people who would be willing to fight in my stead so it is good.

[politicallefty]

It is interesting to note that 86% of us think the war was wrong, yet it was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, which is why I am reluctant to vote for anyone of either party.

That's not entirely accurate. In the Senate, it is indeed regrettably true that a majority of both parties voted for the war. However, a majority of House Democrats voted against the war.

[Bozo the Clown]

Also how do we know Obama's reasons are just? This could just be an attempt at getting oil for our country. No War for Oil!

[WorkingClassBro]

Under the circumstances it happened, definitely not.

[tarheel-leftist85]

Only if a Democrat is in charge, they call it "humanitarian," further privatize the endeavor, and hide behind "cultural" "issues." I courageously oppose it if a pious cowboy does the same thing.